[QUOTE=gc101;861134]Our society has a pandemic of sexism. Women are targeted merely because of their gender, are denied their God-given rights, and held back for no reason other than their sex. Outrages abound. Some of the worst offenses against women that have occurred in recent ages include: telling women that they need medication just because they are fertile (contraception), that their call to motherhood is a "punishment" (Obama on abortion), and that stability and mutual loyalty are a trap (divorce). Women are right to be outraged and demand justice.
Women have a right and an obligation to be active in the Church, but at the same time they must remember that
Christ prepared a special role for them, motherhood (be it biological or spiritual).

Throughout European history (including modern history) there have been many royals who were denied chances of happiness because of the fact they were born royals. Even in America, people are born into political families, bearing burdens of power that they have no desire for. Women are born with a similar awesome power: the power to carry a human life. But with this power, comes responsibility. Certain doors, including sacramental ministry are closed to them. Just as a priest can never know the joy of giving birth, a woman can never now the joy of consecrating a Host.

I pray for these woman, and I pray for all the men (and women) who have told them to reject their glorious femininity.[/QUOTE]

Gabe?! What the heck are you doing on beliefnet? Of all of your complaining about how I spend too much time debating online, you decide to come and join in the argumentative fun?!

Our society has a pandemic of sexism. Women are targeted merely because of their gender, are denied their God-given rights, and held back for no reason other than their sex. Outrages abound. Some of the worst offenses against women that have occurred in recent ages include: telling women that they need medication just because they are fertile (contraception), that their call to motherhood is a "punishment" (Obama on abortion), and that stability and mutual loyalty are a trap (divorce). Women are right to be outraged and demand justice. Women have a right and an obligation to be active in the Church, but at the same time they must remember that Christ prepared a special role for them, motherhood (be it biological or spiritual).

Throughout European history (including modern history) there have been many royals who were denied chances of happiness because of the fact they were born royals. Even in America, people are born into political families, bearing burdens of power that they have no desire for. Women are born with a similar awesome power: the power to carry a human life. But with this power, comes responsibility. Certain doors, including sacramental ministry are closed to them. Just as a priest can never know the joy of giving birth, a woman can never now the joy of consecrating a Host.

I pray for these woman, and I pray for all the men (and women) who have told them to reject their glorious femininity.

IOW, the proper role for women still comes down to -- barefoot and pregnant. Oh yes, and its'sOK to iron the altar cloths and arrange the flowers. Then you must just step aside, like a good girl.

And, of course, it is the divine right of the men to define the roles of women for women (women are to have no say). And it is the divinely ordained duty of women to accept the roles defined by the men - even though they are to have no say. .

If I weren't so familiar with this line of thought from Ang's many posts on it, I'd think you were joking.

But, I still have the same reaction I have with Ang's posts - I'm so very sad that you actually believe it.

[QUOTE=WaveringCC;862368]IOW, the proper role for women still comes down to -- barefoot and pregnant. Oh yes, and its'sOK to iron the altar cloths and arrange the flowers. Then you must just step aside, like a good girl.

And, of course, it is the divine right of the men to define the roles of women for women (women are to have no say). And it is the divinely ordained duty of women to accept the roles defined by the men - even though they are to have no say. .

If I weren't so familiar with this line of thought from Ang's many posts on it, I'd think you were joking.

But, I still have the same reaction I have with Ang's posts - I'm so very sad that you actually believe it.

Oh well.

Welcome to the board. Ang misses you.

Peace and God's blessings be upon both of you.[/QUOTE]

So, do you actually think the Church will change & allow female priests?

I hope they start accepting some women clergy. This has been a point of contention for me personally.

The Church has changed over the centuries. There was a time celibacy was not a stated requirement. St Peter was married according to the Bible. So if the Church can go from not requiring celibacy to stating it does, I'm sure someday it can go from a male only priesthood to allowing women to heed their calling. Of course then the "purists" will need to come up with something else. "None of the 12 Apostles were" will no longer cut it.

.... Women have a right and an obligation to be active in the Church, but at the same time they must remember that Christ prepared a special role for them, motherhood (be it biological or spiritual). .... Women are born with a similar awesome power: the power to carry a human life. But with this power, comes responsibility. Certain doors, including sacramental ministry are closed to them. .

Women aka walking, talking uteruses. What is the special role for men? Would I, with my awesome power, be able to tell you what your role is?

A strong role for women in the church is not a new idea. In Romans addresses Junia as "outstanding among the apostles". The early church includes records of female deacons and priests. In the medieval church, abbesses were powerful, sometimes holding authority and secular power independently of local bishops - or even over them. In the modern church, they do an enormous amount of work with inadequate credit. It is iniquitous that the modern church refuses to allow them to take their full place amongst the clergy.

In reflecting on the womenpriests movement, it is worth remembering that the church routinely proclaims (quite rightly) the importance of standing against injustice - but abandons this principle inside its own structures. Faced with the same problem some years ago, women in the Anglican church adopted the same strategy now undertaken by the womenpriests - devising ordination independently of the church authority and declared policy. Their numbers steadily increased, until the principle became accepted. The same thing will happen in the Catholic Church - it will just take longer.

A strong role for women in the church is not a new idea. In Romans addresses Junia as "outstanding among the apostles". The early church includes records of female deacons and priests.

Can you back this claim up?

In the medieval church, abbesses were powerful, sometimes holding authority and secular power independently of local bishops - or even over them. In the modern church, they do an enormous amount of work with inadequate credit. It is iniquitous that the modern church refuses to allow them to take their full place amongst the clergy.

In reflecting on the womenpriests movement, it is worth remembering that the church routinely proclaims (quite rightly) the importance of standing against injustice - but abandons this principle inside its own structures. Faced with the same problem some years ago, women in the Anglican church adopted the same strategy now undertaken by the womenpriests - devising ordination independently of the church authority and declared policy. Their numbers steadily increased, until the principle became accepted. The same thing will happen in the Catholic Church - it will just take longer.

I hope they start accepting some women clergy. This has been a point of contention for me personally.

The Church has changed over the centuries. There was a time celibacy was not a stated requirement. St Peter was married according to the Bible. So if the Church can go from not requiring celibacy to stating it does, I'm sure someday it can go from a male only priesthood to allowing women to heed their calling. Of course then the "purists" will need to come up with something else. "None of the 12 Apostles were" will no longer cut it.

None of the 12 Apostles were women -- that is a very big reason why...

That aside, the Church has indeed changed but She has never (and cannot ever) reverse Herself on matters that pertain to the dogmatic deposit of faith such as the all-male ordained priesthood.